Thread: [TV] Loki

Page 44 of 51 FirstFirst ...
34
42
43
44
45
46
... LastLast
  1. #861
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The only way to "wipe out those Kangs" is to prevent their timelines from ever existing. Otherwise, the timeline would keep splitting, and he'd have a constant and unending multiversal war on his hands. That's what was happening, before he got this idea in his head. It's the use of the TVA to cut those timelines off that allowed He Who Remains to win the Multiversal War, in the first place.
    Yeah that is the point. He won. If he already wiped out all other Kangs how will the already Kang-less time line get another one? I can see how it may lead to another multiversal war. Unless each new time line is a fresh timeline starting from scratch or something and another Kang will eventually rise to time traveling dominance?



    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    He's incredibly old and has lost any real desire to live. He doesn't care if he dies in the first place. That's why he invites Sylvie to kill him. He wants it all to be over. Either by the Lokis taking the reins and letting him retire to die in peace, or killing him and starting the cycle again where some fresh version of himself can do the work because he's just done.

    He literally explains this straight-up.
    That is what i found stupid. If the Lokis did not take the reins his plan was to just say fuck it and hope for the best after millennia of work? Could he not have picked a nice Kang to take over? Just punted those Lokis and found some other ones that would be willing to take over? Did it have to be those specific Lokis? Dunno i just found it a bit stupid.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post


    It's not a one time thing. It happens constantly and the sacred timeline has to be protected continuously, whenever a nexus event arises. If left unchecked, branches will appear. As we see it happening, just before HWR's death.
    Yeah but he has already taken out the other Kangs by the sound of it. So am not sure how you will get other Kangs no matter how a timeline branches. He is outside of time so i assume if some one creates a nexus event that leads to another Kang he has already seen it and sorted it. I guess with timey wimey stuff you can never be sure or something.

  2. #862
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadite View Post
    Yeah that is the point. He won. If he already wiped out all other Kangs how will the already Kang-less time line get another one? I can see how it may lead to another multiversal war. Unless each new time line is a fresh timeline starting from scratch or something and another Kang will eventually rise to time traveling dominance?





    That is what i found stupid. If the Lokis did not take the reins his plan was to just say fuck it and hope for the best after millennia of work? Could he not have picked a nice Kang to take over? Just punted those Lokis and found some other ones that would be willing to take over? Did it have to be those specific Lokis? Dunno i just found it a bit stupid.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yeah but he has already taken out the other Kangs by the sound of it. So am not sure how you will get other Kangs no matter how a timeline branches. He is outside of time so i assume if some one creates a nexus event that leads to another Kang he has already seen it and sorted it. I guess with timey wimey stuff you can never be sure or something.
    I think we can safely assume that the natural way of things in the MCU is for a multiverse to exist, and therefore once no longer being controlled by He Who Remains, it finds a way to go back to its natural state.

  3. #863
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Not right away. The Multiversal War still needs to happen. You're trying to force a linear, unchanging time framework onto a system that is explicitly nonlinear and constantly mutable.
    To expand on this:

    The Sacred Timeline is still there. Endgame made it explicitly clear that a timeline in the MCU cannot be altered (like it happens in some movies and shows). Any history that has already happened is locked in. You can go back, but doing so will create a new, different timeline, with the changes you make affecting only that new branch. Original timeline is still there and untouched up until the point that you left it.

    Now, with that settled we can talk about what exactly happens with the coming Multiversal War. When the TVA is not pruning these branches, every choice ever made by anyone in the entire universe creates a new timeline branch, which is what we saw happening with the timeline splitting at the end of episode 6. This is where the "infinite" branches come from. With infinite branches existing, the Multiversal War will happen everywhere and at every moment in time. You just don't see that, as in each individual timeline it'll only happen at the time unique to that timeline. In the main Sacred Timeline, this seems to be starting around 2023/2024. In another timeline, Kang could step out of a time portal in the middle of the Civil War battle in Germany, and then that timeline would enter the Multiversal War from that point. In another he could show up to a bunch of cavemen.

    Either way, no matter how things appear to be playing out at the Citadel at the End of Time, the war happening in each individual timeline must take its course for that timeline at the time that it transpires. For the Sacred Timeline it just so happens to take place as the beginning of what we know as Phase 4.

  4. #864
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    You're confusing the Threshold HWR mentions with the time branching above the red line TVA monitors and prunes, whenever exceeded.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It's not a one time thing. It happens constantly and the sacred timeline has to be protected continuously, whenever a nexus event arises. If left unchecked, branches will appear. As we see it happening, just before HWR's death.
    Why do you think the 'red line' and the 'threshold' are different things?

  5. #865
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadite View Post
    Yeah that is the point. He won. If he already wiped out all other Kangs how will the already Kang-less time line get another one? I can see how it may lead to another multiversal war. Unless each new time line is a fresh timeline starting from scratch or something and another Kang will eventually rise to time traveling dominance?
    I really don't see where the issue is. The entire point of the TVA was to prune away branches from the timeline that would lead to a different Kang existing. The TVA being rudderless and no longer fulfilling that mission means that those branches are free to occur and those other Kangs will start to emerge, as those timelines diverge and create variance.

    It doesn't have to "start from scratch", given that they explicitly show the timeline branching as its natural form.

    That is what i found stupid. If the Lokis did not take the reins his plan was to just say fuck it and hope for the best after millennia of work? Could he not have picked a nice Kang to take over? Just punted those Lokis and found some other ones that would be willing to take over? Did it have to be those specific Lokis? Dunno i just found it a bit stupid.
    He's literally the only "good" Kang, in his own estimation.

    And yeah; if they kill him, the cycle repeats, and another him will repeat the pattern, so he really doesn't care. Particularly as he's clearly burned out and has no interest in living on. He says all this, right out, and I don't know why you're acting like it's unclear.


  6. #866
    Quote Originally Posted by formerShandalay View Post
    Why do you think the 'red line' and the 'threshold' are different things?
    There's every reason to believe they are different things. Primarily because Kang has defined both for different reasons.

    The threshold he spoke of to Loki and Sylvie was the point in time at which he no longer knew what was going to happen.

    The red line was the, wordplay not intended, threshold at which the TVA understood a timeline branch to be a calamity that would destroy the sacred timeline and bring about chaos/multiversal war/etc/etc. But that's just what the TVA was told. We have no reason to presume that's 100% truth or accurate.

    Keep in mind, Kang made the TVA to prevent more Kangs. That doesn't inherently mean all branch timelines needed pruning to achieve his objective. And we know he built the false religion the TVA follows, so all we can reasonably conclude is that if a timeline were to shoot past the red line it would mean another Kang would appear.

    The red line and the threshold could arguably be one in the same - i.e. if a branch breached the red line the effect would be the same as the threshold that was crossed at the end of the season - but that is not inherently true, and imo more likely not true.

  7. #867
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    There's every reason to believe they are different things. Primarily because Kang has defined both for different reasons.

    The threshold he spoke of to Loki and Sylvie was the point in time at which he no longer knew what was going to happen.

    The red line was the, wordplay not intended, threshold at which the TVA understood a timeline branch to be a calamity that would destroy the sacred timeline and bring about chaos/multiversal war/etc/etc. But that's just what the TVA was told. We have no reason to presume that's 100% truth or accurate.

    Keep in mind, Kang made the TVA to prevent more Kangs. That doesn't inherently mean all branch timelines needed pruning to achieve his objective. And we know he built the false religion the TVA follows, so all we can reasonably conclude is that if a timeline were to shoot past the red line it would mean another Kang would appear.

    The red line and the threshold could arguably be one in the same - i.e. if a branch breached the red line the effect would be the same as the threshold that was crossed at the end of the season - but that is not inherently true, and imo more likely not true.
    Kang said they crossed the threshold and we are shown that there's now branches from the sacred timeline right after, then he says it's the point from which on he doesn't know what will happen anymore. My take on that was, he doesn't know what will happen anymore, because now the branches crossed the threshold, aka the 'red line', which is exactly what he built the TVA to prevent. Why should the TVA use a different definition for that, when all they are saying is what he put into their minds? They don't know it, but they are not 'guarding a sacred timeline' for the sake of a sacred timeline. They are preventing other Kangs from happening. So their red line has to be exactly what prevents that and we get shown in the episode that the 'crossed threshold' meant that a timeline formed where Kang the Conquerer ruled (the one Loki gets pushed into). So to me it seems quite obvious that the threshold HWR talks about and the 'red line' are the very same thing. I believe it can't be anything different even, because the TVA agents can only say what HWR put into their heads, it's not their own reasoning or definitions, it can't differ from his.

  8. #868
    Quote Originally Posted by formerShandalay View Post
    Kang said they crossed the threshold and we are shown that there's now branches from the sacred timeline right after, then he says it's the point from which on he doesn't know what will happen anymore. My take on that was, he doesn't know what will happen anymore, because now the branches crossed the threshold, aka the 'red line', which is exactly what he built the TVA to prevent. Why should the TVA use a different definition for that, when all they are saying is what he put into their minds? They don't know it, but they are not 'guarding a sacred timeline' for the sake of a sacred timeline. They are preventing other Kangs from happening. So their red line has to be exactly what prevents that and we get shown in the episode that the 'crossed threshold' meant that a timeline formed where Kang the Conquerer ruled (the one Loki gets pushed into). So to me it seems quite obvious that the threshold HWR talks about and the 'red line' are the very same thing. I believe it can't be anything different even, because the TVA agents can only say what HWR put into their heads, it's not their own reasoning or definitions, it can't differ from his.
    I was going to disagree in a lengthy response, but decided that either interpretation is completely fine, so I'm cool either way

  9. #869
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    I was going to disagree in a lengthy response, but decided that either interpretation is completely fine, so I'm cool either way
    And we won't know for sure until season 2 comes out anyway ... which I would very much like to start next week, but it's going to take a bit longer, I guess >.<

  10. #870
    Quote Originally Posted by formerShandalay View Post
    And we won't know for sure until season 2 comes out anyway ... which I would very much like to start next week, but it's going to take a bit longer, I guess >.<
    Lol, right??

  11. #871
    Over 9000! Kyphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    9,256
    I wonder what Loki Season 2 will even be about? Isn't Dr. Strange 2 going to happen before Loki Season 2? Which begs the question if Multiverse of Madness will in turn set up Loki Season 2. This is where things may get messy. I like the Disney+ shows being connected to the movies but if they become must-watch, they'll alienate a lot of their general audience who will start getting lost.

    Ok season finale I guess. I'm a DC fan first, Marvel fan second, so I don't know a lot of the deeper lore (like Eternals, Kang, etc., sort of learning as I go along.) When He Who Remains (HWR) just spoon feed me information, it was kind of boring. Like I said, I'm a big DC fan, so I know all their lore, but not Marvel... I wouldn't have known that was Kang if I hadn't come here and read a lot of reactions. Likewise, how many people won't know who Kang is when he appears again in Antman 3 if they don't watch Loki?

    Marvel has become big because unlike DC, they knew how to appeal to a general audience, but their methods of story-telling and moving their cinematic universe forward are getting convoluted. I can keep up and learn on the fly from being a big DC fan, but general audience fans who don't like Wandavision, or Loki for whatever reason, but of course go see Dr. Strange 2 because that's a big cinematic experience, then find out they missed a heaping of information for not watching shows they weren't interested may second guess the MCU's decision-making. "I have to watch those boring shows now for Dr. Strange 2 to make sense?"

    Pulling off a Multiverse was never going to be easy. It's akin to DC (who did it first and much better) even considering doing, say, a phase of films that led up to Infinite Crisis. If you want to do it well, and adapt in good faith, it takes hundreds of characters and it's not easy to write for a general audience, and while including TV shows gives you proper time to develop villains and story threads better (instead of let's say, blowing your load on Age of Ultron in a single movie instead of a Disney + series and a couple movies), they're still in the business to make money and create movies for non comic book nerds. Making a show this heavy handed on exposition a lot of people may not see for a summer tentpole is either genius or in vain. I'm not a G.I Joe fan but I plan to watch Snake Eyes because it looks cool, but if I found there was some streaming show on a streaming network I have to buy to watch so Snake Eyes makes sense when I go see it in theaters, suddenly, just going to the theaters to watch a cool G.I Joe movie doesn't seem as fun if I have the chore of watching The Baroness show so Snake Eyes makes sense.
    Last edited by Kyphael; 2021-07-18 at 04:56 AM.

  12. #872
    That's also a good question. Does the existence of a Loki s2 mean Dr. Strange 2 won't have a definitive ending?

    Speaking of which, Kang is supposed to be the main villain of Ant-Man 3, that seems to imply Ant-Man is gonna lose to Kang. Wonder what kind of fallout will happen in that movie.

  13. #873
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyphael View Post
    I wonder what Loki Season 2 will even be about?
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    That's also a good question. Does the existence of a Loki s2 mean Dr. Strange 2 won't have a definitive ending?
    I think it bears remembering what the narrative themes of S1 were.

    They did not revolve around Kang. Or the TVA. It's about Loki (the one we're following, I'll call the others by different names to avoid confusion) and, as a reflection upon Loki, Sylvie.

    Loki was defined by his self-hatred, and his inability to trust anyone. That's how he started the show. He was at a low point, primed to for self-reflection, having suffered one of his most humiliating defeats, realizing that what he'd been doing all this time was not achieving the goals he wanted, and that possibly, there was another way to go about this. This is what led Original Loki (the one who went through the MCU films) to reconcile with Thor and become a more heroic figure, but Loki is right at the crossroads where he can choose that path.

    Which he mostly does. Working with Mobius, and meeting Sylvie, both give Loki the same kind of emotional kick in the pants that reconciling with Thor did for Original Loki, especially because he can see in Sylvie his own worst qualities writ large.

    The whole path from there gets pretty metatextual. The attachment to Sylvie represents Loki coming to love himself, replacing that self-hatred. He puts more and more trust and faith in her (himself). In the end, he dives in front of her, trusting her to not kill him, knowing she does not truly trust him but needing her to be able to take that leap. And she pulls her attack.

    But, in the end, Sylvie's not ready. She's invested too much into her revenge fantasy, and needs to see it through, so while she won't willfully hurt herself any more (why she doesn't just kill Loki to get past him), she'll lie to herself (him) and put the better part of her aside to get her revenge.

    And it ruins her. She gets her revenge, and then collapses on the floor. She has no more direction, and her victory is entirely empty. It gives her nothing.

    Loki, comparatively, is distraught, but very quickly starts to take action. He hasn't lost hope. He leaps straight to action, to try and figure out a way back to Sylvie, before being tripped up by having been sent to a different timeline entirely.

    And I think for S2, that's where we're going to pick up. This isn't resolved. Loki has started to figure out who he wants to be, but he's not secure in his new identity he's built for himself. That's still wrapped up in Sylvie. Who, again, isn't just "some girl he likes", she's literally himself. He knows where she's at, emotionally, because he's been there. But he's also not sure he's not fooling himself. What Sylvie represents, IMO, is the potential for Loki to truly be a better person. If Loki can save her, he saves himself. He proves it's not just him lying to himself; he can see those things in her. That's why he's scrambling.

    I don't think we need Kang at all in S2. He served the purpose, which was to be the fail condition for Sylvie's path. We'll still have Mobius and the TVA, because Loki's gonna need a way to move about in the timeline to chase Sylvie down, but it's not going to be about trying to stop her, it's going to be (IMO, this is all speculation) about trying to save her. I imagine she isn't going to recover from her despair. She may pull a Classic Loki and hide somewhere in solitude, or she may start lashing out and taking on bigger and bigger foes trying to get herself killed. It'll be self-destructive, rather than aimed at external destruction, though.

    Because, in the end, Loki's biggest enemy has always been himself.


  14. #874
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    That's also a good question. Does the existence of a Loki s2 mean Dr. Strange 2 won't have a definitive ending?

    Speaking of which, Kang is supposed to be the main villain of Ant-Man 3, that seems to imply Ant-Man is gonna lose to Kang. Wonder what kind of fallout will happen in that movie.
    I don't think the Kang in season 2 is going to be the same as the one in Ant Man. I think they have done a good job so far of telling stories in the series but keeping the characters in the same position they left the films in. Sam still has the shield and is now Captain America like Steve wanted, Scarlet Witch is still without Vision, and Loki is alive and off somewhere.

  15. #875
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    That's also a good question. Does the existence of a Loki s2 mean Dr. Strange 2 won't have a definitive ending?

    Speaking of which, Kang is supposed to be the main villain of Ant-Man 3, that seems to imply Ant-Man is gonna lose to Kang. Wonder what kind of fallout will happen in that movie.
    I think season 2 will happen before antman 3

  16. #876
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    That's also a good question. Does the existence of a Loki s2 mean Dr. Strange 2 won't have a definitive ending?

    Speaking of which, Kang is supposed to be the main villain of Ant-Man 3, that seems to imply Ant-Man is gonna lose to Kang. Wonder what kind of fallout will happen in that movie.
    No Marvel movie has had a definitive ending. If you can think of one let me know.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jotaux View Post
    I think season 2 will happen before antman 3
    I’m half expecting S2 next summer.

  17. #877
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    No Marvel movie has had a definitive ending. If you can think of one let me know.
    Infinity War springs to mind, though maybe not in the way you're thinking.

    Yes, we knew there was a Part 2 coming, soonish, with Endgame, but the Infinity War ending is pretty damned definitive and conclusive, taken by itself without that extra-textual knowledge.


  18. #878
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    No Marvel movie has had a definitive ending. If you can think of one let me know.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I’m half expecting S2 next summer.
    I'm more pondering if they're willing to kill off a character to stress the importance of Kang: like Pym, Wasp, or Ant-Man himself.

    Rudd is expensive, so is Douglas, Evangeline Lily is probably the cheapest of the three but still not cheap.

  19. #879
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I'm more pondering if they're willing to kill off a character to stress the importance of Kang: like Pym, Wasp, or Ant-Man himself.

    Rudd is expensive, so is Douglas, Evangeline Lily is probably the cheapest of the three but still not cheap.
    If they play the Hollywood Game, it'll be Pym. Not because of cost, but because that leaves the title heroes as a romantic duo; Pym's practically incidental and Wasp can handle producing Pym particles at this point. That's what I'd expect, at least.

    If they want to upset the status quo, they'll kill off Scott. He's the iconic center, and he'll be the most impactful loss. But it's kind of cheap, since you're basically saying "he worked out his family life and has become a hero, STORY COMPLETE, DELETE HERO."

    If they want to make the audience super fucking angry at Kang and really cement his villainy, it'll be Cassie. If I were writing it, that's where I'd go. Sure, she's not one of the "heroes", but that's the point. It's Scott's daughter. She's not involved in this hero shit. It's out of nowhere and totally unfair and it'll punch the audience right in the gut. Which is what you want, if you're killing a character; you want to kill them when their story's not over and it's not fair and it hurts too much for the audience and the characters. Unlike killing a character whose arc is complete, which is just cleaning up loose ends so you don't have to keep them around.

    I'm also not a monster and the Multiverse exists now, and if I'm writing this, I'm also writing Ant-Man 4 or Young Avengers 1 and some multiversal Cassie Lang is kicking her way into the MCU from some other universe where Kang killed her fucking dad and mom and step-dad, and she's fucking pissed and full of Pym particles. Hello, Stature. Maybe this gets teased in the after-credits of Ant-Man 3 if I want the audience to end on a hopeful note.


  20. #880
    Make sure to watch those youtube videos titled:

    I Watched Loki Ep. 5 in 0.25x Speed and Here's What I Found

    Is really nice to see so many references i missed ^_^)
    Is one of those nice brainiac series.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •